Connect with us

Faith

“This Is A Town That Wants Thoughts and Prayers”: Why the Santa Fe Shooting Isn’t Working for the Anti-Gun Left

Published

on

The news media would have you believe that the Parkland shooting was an organic reaction to a nation crippled with far too many school shootings.

Young David Hogg, Cameron Kaskey, and Emma Gonzalez were just innocent kids who want to go to school without the threat of gun violence, but the big, bad NRA is so determined to keep making money (despite being a not-for-profit organization) they’ll just keep forking out millions to Congress to pass laws that empower school shooters.

Or something.

In reality, Broward County, Florida, where Parkland is located, was already a deep-blue county long before the shooting, and these kids were already far-left ideologically, as is much of the community in which they grew up, so becoming enraged, anti-gun protesters was a natural conclusion for them following the horrific tragedy that they couldn’t otherwise explain than to blame the guns. 

In Texas, the tragic Santa Fe High School shooting is drawing a stark contrast to Parkland, because, as Matt Post of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence told BuzzFeed, “This is a town that wants thoughts and prayers.”

“I don’t think guns are the problem — I think people are the problem,” said another student to NBC News. “Even if we did more gun laws, people who are sick enough to do something like this are still going to figure out a way to do it. So it doesn’t matter.”

Many more residents and public officials are also putting the blame not on the NRA or Texas’ firearm culture but on mental health, a culture of violence and death, and decreased mortality. They recognize that the weapons themselves aren’t to blame, but the angry young man who carried out the shooting and the various factors that might have driven him to commit such an act.

“We have created a culture that does not value life, that does not honor God, that does not respect authority. We are reaping the consequences of those actions, and that’s not going to be reversed by a security guard or a metal detector,” Rev. Brad Drake told the LA Times.

Matt Vespa of Town Hall notes that, of course, in Parkland, the guns weren’t to blame either.

“The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was part of an Obama-era disciplinary reform program that some are saying allowed him to slide through the cracks, despite serial write-ups on his behavior. He should have been committed in 2016 for cutting himself after breaking up with his girlfriend via the Baker Act. This would have shown up on a background check, preventing him from buying the AR-15 in February of 2017, which he used in the attack this year,” he explains.

“The FBI should have followed up on the two tips about him,” he continues. “The local police, who were called to his home over 40 times, in some cases, where Cruz was reported to have pointed guns at people’s heads, should have been able to do something to ensure public safety. The police, FBI, school, and local officials all failed here. It was a total failure. It wasn’t the NRA. It wasn’t the current gun laws. The current gun laws would have been able to prevent him from buying and owning guns if the officials had just acted upon the existing laws.”

“And don’t even get me started on the Broward County Sheriff’s Department,” he adds.

In Santa Fe, as well, the gunman was 17, meaning every step of the way he was breaking a law that’s already on the books. Santa Fe residents know this, and they know that a community in mourning deserves its time, and does not need to become a staging area for the next agenda-driven media hoopla.

“Out of Parkland there was a lot of rage immediately. I don’t feel that kind of rage here,” Post observed about Santa Fe. “It’s such a nice community that no one wants to be an adversary.”

Vespa notes that the left has a short memory, but the pro-2A right won’t soon forget this contrast. It’s sad, really, because maybe if more communities could behave in this way, we might actually be able to have more productive national conversations about how to end gun violence.

But that will never happen with a media deadset on sensationalizing and politicizing every opportune shooting.

Faith

Pelosi is Barred from Communion by Archbishop of San Fran

WHOA!

Published

on

Of all of the personal, bitter, hot topics that our nation is facing, perhaps none is quite as raw as abortion.

With the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade sometimes in the not-so-distant future, the issue is once again at the forefront of the American political theater, and the fervor is increasing by the minute.

Now, in a wild escalation of the national narrative, church is giving state a little bit of blowback.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

He did not hold back.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter.

And also:

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.

“Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” he said.

And with Catholics making up a rather large voting bloc in America, (and California, too), Nancy Pelosi may have to get to praying.

Of all of the personal, bitter, hot topics that our nation is facing, perhaps none is quite as raw as abortion. With the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade sometimes in the not-so-distant future, the issue is once again at the forefront of the American political theater, and the fervor is increasing by the minute. Now, in a wild escalation of the national narrative, church is giving state a little bit of blowback. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion. Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself. He did not hold back. “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter. And also: Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so. “Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all…

Continue Reading

Faith

SCOTUS Rules Against Boston After City Refused to Fly Christian Flag

The decision was seen as a win for Christians everywhere.

Published

on

In the United States, we are guaranteed the freedom to practice whichever religion we should choose, and have been since the inception of this great nation.

What we are not guaranteed, however, is freedom from religion.  We are allowed to believe what we wish, but we must also understand that this means we may bear witness to the beliefs of others who are exercising their rights.  Maybe we’ll see a yarmulke at the grocery store, or get stuck in traffic as a baptist megachurch lets out on Sunday.

It also means that all religions must be treated equally – something that the City of Boston is learning the hard way this week.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.”

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

The ruling left no room for interpretation.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights.

And that’s not all:

The court’s opinion pointed to how Boston said their goal is “to accommodate all applicants” looking to hold events in the city’s “public forums,” including City Hall Plaza, and the flag flying application only asked for contact information and a short description of the event being requested.

Breyer noted that the city employee who fields flag applications testified that before Camp Constitution’s application, he had never even asked to see a flag before granting approval or even before they were raised.

“The city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception,,” Breyer wrote.

The news comes as the mainstream media continues to equate the religious right with the lesser opinions they hold of conservatives in general, thereby creating a soft vilification of Christianity in the process.

In the United States, we are guaranteed the freedom to practice whichever religion we should choose, and have been since the inception of this great nation. What we are not guaranteed, however, is freedom from religion.  We are allowed to believe what we wish, but we must also understand that this means we may bear witness to the beliefs of others who are exercising their rights.  Maybe we’ll see a yarmulke at the grocery store, or get stuck in traffic as a baptist megachurch lets out on Sunday. It also means that all religions must be treated equally – something that the City of Boston is learning the hard way this week. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.” The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. The ruling left no room for interpretation. “We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights. And that’s not all: The court’s opinion pointed to how Boston said their goal is “to accommodate all applicants” looking to hold events in the city’s “public forums,” including City Hall Plaza, and the flag flying application only asked for contact information and a short description of the event being requested. Breyer noted that the city employee who…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week